Pakistan Essential Services (Rehabilitation) Act, 1952, Section 7 State Establishment, which is governed by the Act Employer, Section 25A, Section 25A, to remedy against termination of employment under Section 7 Complaint Request before the Labor Court.
Appeal No. KAR‑388 of 1982, heard on 11th October, 1982.
Pakistan
Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952)‑--
--‑‑S. 7‑Establishment governed by Act‑Employee to seek remedy against termination of service under S. 7‑Grievance petition before Labour Court‑Not maintainable‑Industrial ‑.Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A.
K. E. S. C. Ltd, v. N. I, R. C. P L D 1982 S C 113 and Burmah Shell Ltd. v. Sind Labour No. 4 P L D 1978 Kar. 109 rel.
Ch. Rasheed Ahmed for Appellant.
Date of hearing :11th October, 1982.
DECISION
This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Fifth Labour Court given on 23rd August, 1982, dismissing the grievance petition filed by the appellant workman challenging his dismissal from‑ service and praying for. his re‑instatement in service with full back benefits. It is an admitted Position that the respondent establishment and its employees are governed by the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. Relying upon the decision of their Lordships of Supreme Court in the case of K. E. S. C. Ltd. v. N. I. R. C. (P L D 1982 S C 113) and the judgment of the High Court in the case of Khuda Bukhsh v. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (C. Ps. Nos. 636 and 1755 of 1980), .as also the decisions of this Tribunal in this behalf, the learned Labour Court has held that the grievance petition of the appellant is not maintainable. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case reported in the P L D 1982 S C 113 have categorically stated that a workman, to whom the provisions of the aforesaid Act are applicable, if his aggrieved by the termination of his services, can take steps to institute proceedings as provided under section 7 of the said Act. The said decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Khuda bakhsh and .it was held by the Division Bench that the Labour Counts had no jurisdiction in case of termination of services of an employee to whom provisions of the said Act were applicable. Precisely the same view was expressed by me much earlier in the case of Burmah Shell Limited v. Sind Lahour Court No. 4 (P L D 19778 Kar.109). This Tribunal, in the case of Shah Javaid v. P. I. A., has respectively followed the above decision.
For the reasons discussed by me above, I would uphold the decision of the learned Labour Court and dismiss the appeal in limine.
Appeal dismissed,
